After a meteoric rise which placed it briefly atop the U.S. smartphone sales charts, it closed out 2011 with a deep decline in units sold. Determined to avoid the fate looming over other troubled rivals like Research in Motion, Ltd. (TSE:RIM), HTC saw a big revitalization push, championed by a slew of impressive flagship phones, such as the HTC One X and the refreshed Evo 4G LTE. The bid might have succeeded.

It might have suceeded had HTC not run afoul of punitive legal juggernaut Apple, Inc. (AAPL), that is. HTC didn't need more bad news, but that is precisely what it received.

I. Data Tapping Ban Comes to Fruition

While HTC One X carrier AT&T, Inc. (T) and Evo 4G LTE Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) have some stock of the new Android smartphones, hopes of strong sustained sales may have been crushed this week. U.S. Customs officials announced that they were freezing imports of the Taiwanese designed devices, on the grounds of Apple's successful infringement case against HTC where it scored a preliminary injunction via the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

The U.S. is the second largest smartphone market in the world, and by far the largest market for HTC, whose market share in China -- the world's largest market -- is minimal. That makes the import ban in the U.S. all the more painful.

Specifically, Apple's import ban focuses on U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647. The patent claims the invention of a process that converts phone numbers or addresses found inside apps into queryable objects. Called "data tapping" for short, the feature allows you to tap a number on a webpage within the web browser or from an email inside the email client app and be redirected to the phone app to make a call to that number.

Ironically a similar feature, which recognized web and file system urls and converted them to actionable links existed in versions of Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) Office Suite dating back to the 1990s. Further, other companies implemented custom software to parse office documents and create specialized actionable marked up versions in the early 2000s [example]. In short, Apple's "invention" hardly is new or novel.

However, the fact that it was granted a (re)patent on the idea of actionable text on a smartphone has enabled its legal team to successfully attack Android phonemakers. Apple has not sued Microsoft -- another rival phonemaker -- both because Microsoft likely owns patents on similar technology that predate its patents, and because Microsoft and Apple have a broad cross-licensing agreement in place that basically prevents the companies from suing each other. Apple and Google, Inc. (GOOG) -- maker of Android OS -- have no such agreement.

II. HTC Already Removed the Feature, ITC Bans Imports Anyways

Ironically, HTC claims that the data tapping feature which is responsible for the ban has already been removed from its handsets.

Data tapping in action [Image Source: imgur]

HTC has shipped modified versions of Android, which have specialized browser app and email client app bills that prevent phone-numbers from being converted to actionable links.

Despite complying with the ruling, U.S. Customs (enforcing the ITC order) appears to be blocking imports "indefinitely" anyways, while it "inspects" the handsets to determine if the feature has been fully removed. In short, HTC has tried to play by the rules, but it may lose weeks to months of sales -- millions of dollars in revenue -- due to Apple's successful litigation and the Custom department's sluggish pace and determining whether the ban should be lifted.

HTC's tone was grim in a statement it released this week, commenting:

The US availability of the HTC One X and HTC EVO 4G LTE has been delayed due to a standard U.S. Customs review of shipments that is required after an ITC exclusion order. We believe we are in compliance with the ruling and HTC is working closely with Customs to secure approval. The HTC One X and HTC Evo 4G LTE have been received enthusiastically by customers and we appreciate their patience as we work to get these products into their hands as soon as possible.

Bonnie Chang, an analyst of Yuanta Securities says there's no telling how long it might be before the ITC/Customs might lift the ban, given that they thus far have appeared to refuse to spend what would seem to be an afternoon's worth of work to verify that the feature is gone.

States Ms. Chang to Reuters, "It's really hard to tell how much longer the phones will be held up at the customs because the review has already taken a month."

HTC, like Apple, manufactures its handsets in China. Thus an import ban is tantamout to a sales ban, once existing stock is exhausted.

Shares in the smartphone maker have plunged 10 percent this week on the bad news.

The ban on brand new handsets came as somewhat of a shock to HTC, as it had made it clear that it had removed data tapping from all new models. Despite that, the ITC/Customs seems to have implemented a draconian import ban on the new handsets "just to check". Previously it was thought that only older handsets, which were targeted in the case would be banned from import, pending inspection.

A Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) investors note comments, "Previously, it was expected that general exclusion order from the patent infringement referred to only old models from HTC. However, the latest news suggest otherwise with all models (new and old) potentially at risk."

The lost revenue could be a potentially game ending development for HTC, who was already struggling. In that regard HTC may become a martyr of sorts for Apple's critics and patent reform advocates in the United States.

A long import ban could be fatal to financially troubled HTC. [Image Source: Smart Dots]

After all, larger Android phonemakers Motorola Mobility Inc. (MMI) and Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) have escaped similar import bans, thanks to their large patent portfolios. By contrast, while HTC's phones have the exact same features as Motorola and Samsung (such as data tapping), it alone has suffered a U.S. ban, thanks in part to its smaller patent portfolio and much smaller legal team.

In that regard Apple has been accused of "picking on the little guy". But if Apple is indeed legally "bullying" HTC, it may turn out to be quite the lucrative move. While technophiles will likely bitterly oppose the move, most of Apple's critics were already Android buyers, and they overall represent a minority of smartphone users.

If Apple can succeed in putting HTC under such a crushing financial hardship that it collapses, the average non-technophile user stands a strong chance of converting to an iPhone, which is now on most of America's networks. For all the frustration from the technophile and pro-Android community, there's little they can do to prevent that, as Apple's brilliant marketing machine and polished legal team roll along.

Apple knows it's been ursurped technologically and more people are finally realizing it. So instead of actually creating something competitive, they resort to questionable legal tactics of preventing competitors from delivering phones.

This could have a lot more rammifications than just HTC going down. Sprint has taken an abundance of pre-orders for this device (myself included), and refuse to give refunds due to how their pre-order system is set up.

So Apple is essentially the cause of my money being held in limbo over something that has already been addressed. Why is this held indefinitely? Demo a phone and check it for the infringement. Are they opening every single device? What does this mean for retailers who already have units waiting for sale on Friday? I know Best Buys have them in stock.

LMAO, you've taken the Microsoft argument but changed the name to Apple? That's funny, considering Apple is on the forefront of innovation and every new product they release spawns dozens of copy-cat clones from other manufacturers.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has not written a single piece of original software. Every piece of software they sell has been purchased from another company. Every single one. Oh, sorry, I forgot about Microsoft Bob. They did write that one themselves. Lol.

The CPU/GPU that you refer to is based on the design of a CPU/GPU created by ARM. The modifications done to said ARM processor were done by a company that Apple acquired. They also bought the touch screen technology that they use, they did not develop it in-house. Yes, Apple, quite innovative.

quote: The CPU/GPU that you refer to is based on the design of a CPU/GPU created by ARM

Apple created it's own version of the CPU/GPU combination based on a pre-existing design. But you miss the point. Up until the release of Samsung SG3 just recently, Apple was the CPU/GPU leader for 7 months. If you claim that someone else created the GPU, then why did no Android manufacturer manage to incorporate it into their phones? That alone should teach you that a certain degree of innovation and engineering prowess is required on TOP OF the original manufacturers of the individual parts. The fact that no Android competitor managed to match it until 7 months later is stark evidence of this.

Not only that, but you in general seem to confuse 'develop' with 'innovate'. Apple saw the potential in the touch screen technology, just like Siri, in a way that no Android manufacturer did. They added their own value to both, exactly the same way as they did to the CPU/GPU, and were the first to release products with that hardware. So yes, extremely innovative.

And what's interesting is nobody has explained to me all the magical innovations which their beloved Android handsets bring to the table?

The SGX543MP2 is not designed by Apple...Imagination Technologies (PowerVR) designed that.

Apple lightly massaged the ARM Cortex A9 and packaged it with an off-the-shelf GPU.

And if you think a dual core 800Mhz A9 is the fastest mobile CPU...it's not.

Apple innovates some things. Other people innovate some things. I have a better-working but less folksy version of Siri on my OG droid that's in the closet.

I can name one innovation from other phone manufacturers...LED screens...which Apple does not have. They have LED lit LCD screens, but Samsung uses organic LED lit (AMOLED) screens. They have the highest resolution tablet screen (and I have the iPad3), but Samsung and LG designed that.

Swipe to unlock? neonode.

Apps? Palm/Handspring...i had apps on my visorphone in 2001.

3G...about 3 years late

4G...umm, yea.

They make some great stuff and I even own some of their stuff (iPad3, MBA), but they are not the be-all-end-all...they actually play it very safe on the innovation front. After all, the iPhone and iPad sync via cable...yea, I know you can do wifi now...but they sync and back up locally...like 10 years ago.

Neonode's display was resistive multitouch. Apple invented capacitive multitouch. Look that up in the dicitionary if you're too slow to understnd it.

All you trolls need to recognize this day. This is the day that Apple killed the first of many pirates who have ripped off its designs. Samsung, RIM, Motorola, Nokia -- guess what? You're next.

Apple invented the smartphone overnight when it launched the iPhone.

No operating system before it had ever brought the features iOS did -- true multitasking; true multitouch; an intuitive interface; a third party app store with hundreds of thousands of apps.

Many have tried to copy Apple, but Apple remains more profitable than every Android phonemaker put together. Guess why? Apple innovates. And it patents its innovations.

You fools can cry all you want.

Guess what, if HTC had invented stuff, it would be looking to ban Apple too. Except it didn't. It stole from Apple. And now it dies.

You won't see me shedding a tear for it.

Guess what, whine all you like, but the average consumer doesn't know anything about this lawsuit and even if they did, they wouldn't care. They simply want a product that's original, intuitive, and works. Maybe they would have considered a pirated HTC design before. But guess what? Now they'll probably buy an iPhone.

The Capacitive Multi-Touch that Apple claims to have invented was actually invented about 6 years before they applied for the patent.

This technology was created by a company that Apple purchased in 2005, Fingerworks, the same year they applied for the patent. They were just the first to implement this technology on a mobile device. So, innovative, but not the inventor.

To be completely accurate, there were early versions of capacitive multi-touch created by CERN in the late 70's.

quote: The SGX543MP2 is not designed by Apple...Imagination Technologies (PowerVR) designed that.

Such a simplistic way to view things. Rolls Royce builds jet engines too it doesn't mean fighter jets aren't innovative. The very, very basic step you somehow miss is that Apple was the only one who managed to incorporate said GPU into their phone. If that requires no innovation, why did no Android manufacturer manage it? Why did they take 7 months to even release a phone which was equal to it? Is your answer because no innovation was required? LOL. I wonder how much innovation it took Samsung to use the same GPU as that in the SG2, but just overclocked. Far more impressive, right?

quote: Apple lightly massaged the ARM Cortex A9 and packaged it with an off-the-shelf GPU.

Yes, your completely uninformed 'lightly massaged and packaged' statement will completely negate the fact that no Android manufacturer managed to do anything remotely equivalent. If it's so easy, all Android manufacturers must be complete fails?

quote: And if you think a dual core 800Mhz A9 is the fastest mobile CPU...it's not.

I wonder if my perfectly accurate and precise original statement of 'CPU/GPU' combination escapes you? Perhaps you are like those failing Android manufacturers?

quote: Apple innovates some things. Other people innovate some things. I have a better-working but less folksy version of Siri on my OG droid that's in the closet.

Yes, the 'other' versions of Siri which all work 'better' according to the complete jokes of Android fans who, lets face it, have never even tried Siri, and flies in the face of just about every single independent review of Siri confirming it is the most advanced and best voice control software. And your statement that Apple innovates some things and not others, wow, ground breaking stuff. I wonder how many peoples arguments you believe you are contradicting with such pointless statements.

quote: I can name one innovation from other phone manufacturers...LED screens...which Apple does not have. They have LED lit LCD screens, but Samsung uses organic LED lit (AMOLED) screens. They have the highest resolution tablet screen (and I have the iPad3), but Samsung and LG designed that

Just browsing through my original post to see if this rant has any relevance to what I said whatsoever. Nope.

quote: Swipe to unlock? neonode.

As the court of law found, legally the neonode was not prior art, due to fundamental differences in what the swipe was used for, the graphical feedback, usage of the swipe (not back/forward like in the case of Neonode) and the Neonode was also for a specific direction whereas the Apple patent wont. Of course, the far more knowledgeable and relevant legal authorities have sufficient brain power to know what constitutes prior art, but you know better... I wonder if you think that even if I agreed with you about swipe to unlock that it would have any relevance to Apples track record of hardware which was the subject of my post.

quote: Apps? Palm/Handspring...i had apps on my visorphone in 2001

Oh, you had over 500,000 apps on your Palm / Handspring? The highest quality, largest app library ever? See, again you're confused. You seem to think that having an idea is the same thing as being innovative enough to successfully implement said idea. It's a recurring failure of yours.

3G and 4G - I wonder how much the customers voted with their wallets to indicate that 3G was important to them. I wonder how much the majority of the world who don't yet have access to 4G is buying for that too? Or hang on, is the best selling phone ever one which doesn't have 4G? Is the market trying to tell you something there, Steven? Earth to Steven?

quote: They make some great stuff and I even own some of their stuff (iPad3, MBA), but they are not the be-all-end-all.

Because what I specifically said in my original comment was 'they are the be-all-end-all'? Try no.

As for syncing you can do it all wirelessly so not really sure what point you're trying to make there.

1) Apple isn't banning anyone over copying their CPU/GPU design now are they? No, they are trying to block an HTC phone because of a patent they had no rights to in the first place.

2) The highest resolution, yes. Is it usable? No. I had an iPad 3rd Gen.... using it for media produced an identical viewing area to that of my old Galaxy tab... 8.9. Resolution means nothing if half the pixels are black during usage... If you want a photo, I have one :) you'll also find the GT8.9 had noticeably better color depth even with an anti glare screen protector.

3) Waiting for who to catch up to what on the tablet front? I dunno about you, but I want a tablet that's useful for something other than media consumption and can charge in less than 8 hours. All they did with the iPad 3rd gen is take an iPad 2, double the GPU and quadruple the resolution. Oh, and stuff a huge battery in it because who needs to innovate battery savings? Like I said, I owned one.

You're getting all bent because someone said something against your beloved Apple, and yet I'm the pathetic one? Go back to being a sheep.

quote: 1) Apple isn't banning anyone over copying their CPU/GPU design now are they? No, they are trying to block an HTC phone because of a patent they had no rights to in the first place.

Because nobody has managed to even match it for 7 months, yeah. Do they have to be suing over a CPU/GPU design for it to be innovative, as per my point? Of course not.

quote: 2) The highest resolution, yes. Is it usable? No

Right, yes this sounds spot on. Nobody can use the iPad 3. Why on earth it has smashed the sales records of any other tablet and all Android tablets ever, combined, really escapes me when the screen is so useless. What really gets me is why all the independent reviewers foolishly explained how it's the clearest and best screen on any tablet ever. If only they all had your expertise?

quote: Resolution means nothing if half the pixels are black during usage

Good job they aren't then?

quote: All they did with the iPad 3rd gen is take an iPad 2, double the GPU and quadruple the resolution

Yeah, like, OMG? Oh no they d'int? They took the fastest tablet ever, and they gave it over 2x better graphics and 4x higher resolution, whilst keeping industry leading battery life and apps. I for one was shocked and the market clearly agrees given the record sales figures.

What amateurs Apple are hey?

And don't confuse me for anyone getting 'bent out of shape' I just like correcting complete morons such as yourself who will invent any reason they can to discredit Apple or Apple users, typically because you define yourself on technology and can't stand that every man and his dog now has just as good technology as you do.

And for the record, I don't own an iPad - and I don't own an iPhone. I'm just not a dumb blind biased idiot. That's why I'm hated on here by the anti-Apple nerd crew who just follow Jason's biased drivel like sheep.

quote: When Apple comes up with new technology that I haven't seen before THEN I will be impressed. Something like Wireless HDMI. THAT'S innovation. Thunderbolt. THAT'S innovation.

Innovation is more then being the first to think up or create something. Lots of people & companies have ideas and even prototypes. Innovation is about applying those ideas and inventions in new and/or practical terms. Sure MS played with tablet PCs, but they went nowhere. The true 'Tablet' didn't click until the iPad. The innovation of the iPod was the iPod/iTunes combination and the ecosystem that developed around it. Smartphones where horrible (WinMo survivor here) until Apple pulled together ideas learned from the iPod and the touch screen tech to create the iPhone.

In all these cases Apple crafted combinations of tech into products that clicked with people and changed the landscape. Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile or the production line. But his Model T turned the market upside down and created the path that many others would follow. Twisting ideas, sometimes decades old, and applying them in novel ways producing product that change people's lives. Innovation.

Apple makes a capacitive touch phone - everybody and their brother makes a capacitive touch phoneApple makes a drastically different tablet from previous offerings - everybody makes just that kind of a tabletApple makes a silver laptop with island keyboard - everybody makes it (HP envy, Dell 15z)Apple makes a slim laptop with a tapered design - everybody makes a slim laptop with a tapered designApple makes a square laptop charger with a seamless power cord connection - ASUS makes the same one, only black.

It's not about coming up with something in a lab. It's about bringing it to market. That's what's innovation is, in the eyes of consumers. Who had any benefit from a capacitive screen in some obscure company's lab? And guess what, they bought it, it's part of Apple, and for all intents and purposes, they invented it. But that's not that important.Only the market.

quote: When Apple comes up with new technology that I haven't seen before THEN I will be impressed. Something like Wireless HDMI. THAT'S innovation. Thunderbolt. THAT'S innovation.

You are confusing Invention with Innovation.Innovation is more then being the first to think up or create something. Lots of people & companies have ideas and even prototypes. Innovation is about applying those ideas and inventions in new and/or practical terms. Sure MS played with tablet PCs, but they went nowhere. The true 'Tablet' didn't click until the iPad. The innovation of the iPod was the iPod/iTunes combination and the ecosystem that developed around it. Smartphones where horrible (WinMo survivor here) until Apple pulled together ideas learned from the iPod and the touch screen tech to create the iPhone.

In all these cases Apple crafted combinations of tech into products that clicked with people and changed the landscape. Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile or the production line. But his Model T turned the market upside down and created the path that many others would follow. Twisting ideas, sometimes decades old, and applying them in novel ways producing product that change people's lives. Innovation.

Since when has a slight improvement in an existing idea been really innovative? Faster processor or multi-core processor is something the PC industry has been doing, so that is NOT being innovative. Saying "using this idea from a PC on a phone" is NOT being innovative.

The screen in Apple devices is very very good, but is THAT being innovative, when we have seen screen resolutions going from 320x200 back in the days of CGA and we have seen improved screen resolutions and improved pixel densities since that time. Again, while they have a good product, the basic idea of a higher quality display by itself is not innovative.

If you think about it, almost everything in the iPhone could be seen conceptually as copying from the old Palm Pilot, with improvements. Palm made a lot of mistakes, but Apple really took a lot of concepts already out there and just put them into a slick package. Siri is one of the few things that stands out as being unusual, but even voice recognition to command a computer(which smart phones can be considered at this point) has been around for a long time.

If you want real innovation, look at what Palm was doing with the Pre. Yes, the build quality wasn't great, but gesture area instead of buttons for home and back and such, card view, plus the very nice integration between applications(and yes, it had in 2009 the ability where users could tap on a phone number in a message and have it pull up the phone app to call it). If the Pre 3 were actually sold instead of discontinued, it really would have gotten the attention of a LOT of people. Damn Leo Apotheker!

There's a massive difference between inventing something, and utilising that idea successfully in an appealing package. The innovation from Apple is that they do this better than anyone else.

As for saying 'slight improvement', if that's your standard for something which isn't innovative, that rules out every single Android phone and tablet, ever, since they are all derivatives from the iPhone.

To be so small minded to not recognise the contribution and power Apples innovation has had in this, the smartphone market, is beyond belief. If you honestly believe that Palm Pre were the innovators behind this massive post-iPhone revolution, you are really behind on technology.

I know what fools right? Apple is so innovative that their early MAC success was based on stolen tech from Xerox, and when they couldn't figure out how to actually build a real OS, they took Unix and added a UI.

quote: Apple knows it's been ursurped technologically and more people are finally realizing it. So instead of actually creating something competitive, they resort to questionable legal tactics of preventing competitors from delivering phones.

Careful with the delusional triumphalism because in the real world Apple's iOS business is crushing the Android business.

Apple's legal strategy has nothing to do with whether their iOS device business is a success or not (it's hugely successful and has grown in success using any rational metric for several years), or how it is doing in relation to the Android business (iOS is an order or magnitude a better business than the Android business). What Apple's legal strategy is about is waging a war of legal attrition to deter companies from copying Apple's designs and innovations.

Apple works very hard to make it's products distinctive and has one of the biggest and best brand reputations and profiles in the tech world. Apple is aware that the next big thing (bigger, much bigger, than PCs) is mobile devices. Apple has a long term strategy, which is working very well so far, to be by far the biggest and most dominant force in that new tech world of mobile devices. Apple knows that it's competitors will be constantly tempted to copy it's designs, they would be foolish not to, and it also knows it cannot completely stop them. But it can deter them, it can make copying Apple a legal hassle, it can win enough legal battles to make copying Apple a pain in the butt. Enough of a pain in the butt to make copying Apple a risky minority sport. Then Apple can protect it's brand.

Which is a good thing for everyone (even if it a bad thing for some copyists in the short term) because if companies just copy Apple then innovation slows. Microsoft has shown how you can innovate without copying Apple with both WP7 and Windows 8/Metro, the fact that the first is a market failure and the latter may well be, does not detract from the fact that both were genuine attempts to innovate and thus should be applauded. Most Android device makers are floundering, cannot keep up with the pace of change in the industry and many will die or exit the market over the next few years, but companies like Samsung have clearly shown they have the organisation and will and management skills to compete and survive in the mobile space, Good for them. And even better if they can do it by not copying Apple.

Apple haven't sued anyone over the notification bar. More significantly no one has sued Apple over the notification bar, I guess they must have not taken out a patent. No patent and anyone can use it, so I guess you must applaud Apple's use of it as an example how you think things should be.

quote: Yep Because every business in the world is going to magically switch to "mobile devices" for it's users replacing all desktop PC's.

There are more smart phones than PCs now. There are more people accessing the internet from mobile devices now. The mobile device market is worth more than the PC market already. The market for software for mobile devices is as big as that for PCs now and will be bigger soon. Apple sold 55 million iOS devices in the last quarter of 2011, 55 million in just three months. Microsoft sellls about 60 million Windows licences per quarter. In two years there will be a billion iOS devices and maybe a billion Android devices. Sometime in the next year there will the same number of mobile phones in use as there are people on the planet. iPad sales are almost a straight line going up. Doubling every year. The trend is obvious except to those whose eyes are glued to the rear view mirror.

PCs won't go away, they will just become a niche in the tech world, a largish niche but just a niche, what PCs will never do again is be the driver in the world of information technology. That time has passed.

quote: Apple's legal strategy has nothing to do with whether their iOS device business is a success

Are you serious? The legal strategy ensures iOS is a success, which makes them money. It has everything to do with iOS's success. Are you seriously suggesting that businesses don't do things (including legal actions) that ensure their business model and products are a success?

Legal wars are expensive and companies are about making money. Apples board wouldn't allow this to happen if it weren't about guaranteeing iOS business. Please, prove otherwise.

quote: because if companies just copy Apple then innovation slows.

There has never been any proof of this. Architecture and fashion are just two industries both prove that it innovation is possible without IP protection for designs.

As long as people have goals, they will always find ways to innovate. Nothing about IP laws encourages innovation. People innovated before these existed, and they will continue to. Fire wasn't invented because someone patented the blanket. Fire was invented because people wanted to be warm, eat grilled meat, and put to death those who believe in other Gods and have dumb ideas like "Apple innovates."

quote: Samsung have clearly shown they have the organisation and will and management skills to compete and survive in the mobile space, Good for them. And even better if they can do it by not copying Apple.

quote: Are you serious? The legal strategy ensures iOS is a success, which makes them money. It has everything to do with iOS's success.

I think you may be responding to a point I did not make. Of course Apple's legal strategy relates to their business strategy - it's just not central to it. Apple's prime business strategy is to try to make products as best as they can, to make products that are distinctive and to make products that are very popular which they can sell at a large profit. They appear to be succeeding.

When you say Apple's legal strategy has 'has everything to do with iOS's success' you need to clarify what you mean. If your point is that Apple's legal strategy is a central explanation for Apple's current success then I would argue it clearly isn't as that legal strategy has not significantly impeded the deployment of many, many competing Android devices.

I know it may be comforting to explain Apple's business victories as somehow the illegitimate result of dubious legal manoeuvres but we both know that that is not true. Apple's iOS business is beating the Android business because Apple's business and product strategy is better than the Android business strategy and because Apple is better managed and run that almost any other major tech player. A bitter pill to swallow for some I am sure but the truth nevertheless.

quote: Legal wars are expensive and companies are about making money. Apples board wouldn't allow this to happen if it weren't about guaranteeing iOS business. Please, prove otherwise.

Again I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Apple's success is the result of it's products being hugely successful and selling at a price that in relation to it's costs ensures that Apple makes a very large profit. This is the result primarily of, on the one hand, Apple's ability to make products that are very, very popular and, on the other hand, Apple's ability to manage it's supply chain better than anyone else. I explained why Apple wants to deter wholesale copying of it's designs but let's put this in perspective, when you are as profitable as Apple is and have a cash mountain as big as Apple does then the costs of legal actions are peanuts. For Apple the legal actions have about as much significance as scratching their ass, something one wants to be able to do but not something around which one organises ones life. I would be be surprised if Apple's top management team spent more than 1% of their time discussing this sort of shit.

Apple was sued before suing, by Nokia and Motorola, there is a multi-faceted legal war going on and Apple is just player in that process, it's a big player because it has a lot of IP that relates to the new mobile paradigm but if Apple dropped every one of it's legal actions tomorrow the legal IP wars around mobile would continue.

I respectfully disagree but will likely get downrated by the noisy minority on here who dislike Apple. Apple was the first company to bring a smartphone to the market which was successful with regular people and revolutionised the mobile phone landscape away from feature phones to phones which all essentially worked like the iPhone as we have today. Having owned every type of phone since the first Nokias, the iPhone was obviously revolutionary from the very first time one started using it, far beyond anything I had used in the past. It was a touchscreen phone which actually worked, and was pleasantly designed to look nice.

They should not be subject to having their years of research and development unceremoniously stolen by a competing former partner who hides behind a cloak of open source to make their actions credible. You lot make it sound like Apple simply took all those constituent parts of the iPhone and bunged it into the same device, when the innovation was clearly the software which ran it. Without the iPhone, none of the devices which you hold so dear today would exist and you'd still be using a Motorola Blackjack, Wimo or a Blackberry.

Apple has every right to defend itself using any legal means necessary, which in this case involve the patents which they own to protect their IP especially surrounding the iPhone. Just because most of the innovation seems obvious now in hindsight Because it has become uniquitous, it wasnt at the time. It's not like they didn't ask HTC and Samsung nicely to cease and desist in the first place, and the only innovation Samsung an HTC made was pricing phones which operated like the iPhone at a level where less wealthy people could afford them.

We will see what the next iPhone holds before commenting on whether has been 'usurped technologically'. Your comparing the wrong phones...

So why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that this ban is only affecting AT&T's One X and Sprint's EVO 4G LTE, but NOT T-Mobile's One S? More to the fact, WHY isn't the One S also included in this ban? I'll tell you why - because T-Mobile doesn't sell the iPhone, so the One S isn't an immediate threat to Apple. This customs hold is definitely being paid off and enforced by Apple's goons (deep political and financial connections). If it were a purely government response, then ALL phones would be held - not just the two newest models on the two networks that ALSO happen to sell iPhones.

I'm sorry Apple lovers - but Apple owns NOTHING. Their mobile and desktop OS? A locked down Unix distro. Their "retina" display? Purchased from Samsung & LG (who also DEVELOPED the technology - Apple just said "can we have this screen size with this resolution please, thanks"). Thunderbolt? An INTEL technology that Apple threw a ton of money at so that they could re-brand it and call it their own. Every IC inside of the iPhone/iPad/Macbook? Designed and sold by SOME OTHER COMPANY and then repackaged by Apple.

This is a recurring theme people. Look into it some, will ya? Right now I'm typing this on my 1080p laptop screen (such a delight), but apparently soon Apple is going to equip their Macbooks with higher resolution screens YEARS after other manufacturers have been doing so and they will declare it revolutionary (as will every Apple fan). In reality, Apple is just catching up and no longer selling screens of similar caliber to what you would find on a $600 windows Laptop on their Macbook "pro" line.

Apple will fall again. They're repeating the same mistakes all over again. Closed ecosystem, failure to innovate, and the beginning of brand image decline. Perhaps this time Microsoft won't save them from their ultimate demise.